S107. Adulteration and misbranding of Egg-ola. V. S. * * * v. Wixon?
Spice   Co.,   a   Corporation.     Plea   of   guilty.     Fine,   $25   and   costs.
(F. & D. No. 11037.     I.  S. No. 15712-p.)
On December 31, 1919, the United States attorney for the Northern District?
of Illinois, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the?
District Court of the United States for said district an information against the?
Wixon Spice Co., Chicago, 111., alleging shipment by said defendant, in viola??
tion of the Food and Drugs Act, on or about February 13, 1918, from the State?
of Illinois into the State of South Dakota, of a certain quantity of an article,?
labeled in part " Eggola," which was adulterated aiid misbranded.
Analysis of a sample of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this de??
partment showed that it consisted essentially of cornstarch, dried egg, and?
bicarbonate of soda.
Baking tests with a sample of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of?
this department showed that the product was markedly inferior in texture,?
color, and flavor to a similar product made with eggs.
Adulteration of the article was alleged in that a certain substance, to wit,?
starch, had been mixed and packed with the article so as to lower and reduce?
and injuriously affect its quality and strength.
Misbranding of the article was alleged in that the article was an imitation?
of another article and was offered for sale and sold under the
' distinctive name
84	
BUREAU  OF  CHEMISTRY.	
[Supplement 03,
of another article. Further misbranding was alleged in that statements on the?
label on the package containing the article, regarding the article, to wit,?
" Eggola A Substitute for Eggs in Baking, Cooking, Etc." " Use one level tea-?
spoonfas of Eggola * * * for each egg required," " In baking and cooking-?
it is unsurpassed," and " Use Eggola for eggs," were false and misleading in?
that they represented that the article was a substitute for eggs and could be?
used in place of eggs for cooking, whereas, in truth and in fact, it was not a?
substitute for, and could not be used in place of, eggs. Further misbranding was?
alleged in that the article was so labeled as to deceive and mislead the pur??
chaser into the belief that the article was an egg substitute and could be used?
in place of eggs for cooking, whereas, in truth and in fact, it was not a sub??
stitute for, and could not be used in place of, eggs in cooking.
On March 23, 1920, the defendant entered a plea of guilty to the information,?
and. the court imposed a fine of $25 and costs.
E. D. BALL, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.